Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
31 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Common law duty of care for the amateur trustee is that of a prudent man of business
|
Speight v Gaunt (1883)
|
|
Trustee Act 2000 applies to all trusts, created before or after act came into force (with a couple of exceptions)
|
Trustee Act 2000, s10(2)
|
|
An investment for TA2000 is something expected to produce income or capital growth
|
Harries v CofE Commissioners (1992)
|
|
Definition of “investment” in Harries further supported
|
Cook v Medawy Housing Authority (1997)
|
|
An unsecured loan is not an investment for the purpose of TA2000
|
Khoo Tek v Ch'ng Joo (1934)
|
|
In relation to investments, Ts must use the reasonable care a person of business would for someone they feel morally bound to provide for
|
Learoyd v Whitely (1886)
|
|
Trustees failure to keep up with inflation held not to breach DoC. Duty is of reasonable man and not judged in hindsight.
– Could be pre-2000 Act – Could benefit life tenant, not just remainderman |
Nestle v NatWest (1993)
|
|
Not liable for investment decision unless no reasonable T with knowledge and skill would make it
|
Wight v Olswang (2000)
|
|
Wight v Olswang (2000)
|
Cowan v Scargill (1985)
|
|
If ethical investment E gives as good a return as evil investment V, Ts may choose E
|
Cowan v Scargill (1985)
|
|
Charitable trustees may avoid investments running in contradiction to their purpose
|
Harries v CofE Commissioners (1992)
|
|
“Trustees who take on themselves the management of property for the benefit of others have no right to shift their duty on to other persons
|
Turner v Corney (1841)
|
|
Trustees cannot delegate without authority to do so
|
Pilkington v IRC (1964)
|
|
Trustees not obliged to exercise discretion even if all Bs agree; they are obliged to consider whether or not to
|
Re Brockbank
|
|
Held that once B had advancement of half, no further advance allowed even if fund capital increases
|
Re Marquess of Abergavenny's Estate (1981)
|
|
“Advancement” for Trustee Act 1925 means “anything materially improving B's situation”
|
Pilkington v IRC (1964)
|
|
Held that some advances are improper; be cautious where parents of young Bs are concerned. If in doubt, pay direct to cause, e.g. school)
|
Re Pauling's Settlement Trust (1964)
|
|
Court may intervene if exercise of power or discretion is “improper”
|
Tempest v Lord Camoys (1882)
|
|
Courts may intervene and set aside appointments if Ts blindly follow settlor's instructions without using discretion
|
Turner v Turner (1983)
|
|
Court will intervene if exercise of discretion is capricious – i.e. irrational, perverse or irrelevant to any sensible expectation of the settlor
|
Re Manisty's Settlement (1974)
|
|
Traditionally an honst use of discretion could not challenged, but a court might intervene if the use of discretion is “wholly unreasonable”
|
Dundee General Hospitals Board v Walker (1952)
|
|
Ts are not obliged to provide reasons explaining use of discretion; if they do, the courts may test adequacy and void irrational decisions
|
Klug v Klug (1918)
|
|
Bs are allowed to see trust documents (subject to confidentiality) because Bs are entitled to court protection which might require documents
– Court can force disclosure |
Schmidt v Rosewood Trust (1965)
|
|
Schmidt v Rosewood Trust (1965)
|
Scott v National Trust (1998)
|
|
B can end the trust if:
– 18+ and of sound mind (sui juris) – Sole B entitled under trust – has a vested interest |
Saunders v Vautier (1841)
|
|
Saunders v Vautier does apply to Bs of discretionary trusts where all objects are ascertainable, sui juris and agree
|
Re Smith (1928)
|
|
Case of trust variation being a “benefit”, because although entitlement was delayed a life interest was surrendered
|
Re Holt (1969)
|
|
A rise in contingency age may be considered a benefit because a person is more responsible at 25
|
Re T (1964)
|
|
Variation of trusts, e.g. changing interests is probably OK, but a complete resettlement will not be accepted
|
Re Ball's Settlement (1968)
|
|
It is immaterial for the VTA whether the change is contrary to the settlor's wishes
|
Goulding v James (1997)
|
|
The court has no power under the VTA58 to agree on behalf of an adult consenting and ascertained B
|
Knocker v Youle (1986)
|